I'm an attorney but I'm willing to admit that I'm not an expert in this area.

But my first reaction is that this could be a good clause because it somewhat disincentivizes people from suing Parler for the purpose of bankrupting them with frivolously lawsuits.

Otherwise soros/dems will create a thousand fake accounts, say bad illegal things about himself, and then sue Parler.

This doesnt completely protect parler but its an interesting step.

And to some extent this doesnt matter, because Parler is covered under 230, so as long as its a platform, then you cant sue Parler for the things its users say anyways.

Just my first thoughts. I'd like to hear other takes from lawyers. But most of the other stuff posted here is just ignorant people screeching.

I'm an attorney but I'm willing to admit that I'm not an expert in this area.

But my first reaction is that this could be a good clause because it somewhat disincentivizes people from suing Parler for the purpose of bankrupting them with frivolously lawsuits.

Otherwise soros/dems will create a thousand fake accounts, say bad illegal things about himself, and then sue Parler.

This doesnt completely protect parler but its an interesting step.

Just my first thoughts. I'd like to hear other takes from lawyers. But most of the other stuff posted here is just ignorant people screeching.